Relationship Between Performance on Part I of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Certifying Examination and Scores on USMLE Steps 1 and 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study investigated the strength of the relationship between performance on Part I of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) Certifying Examination and scores on United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Steps 1 and 2. METHOD: USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 scores on first attempt were matched with ABOS Part I results for U.S./Canadian graduates taking Part I for the first time between 2002 and 2006. Linear and logistic regression analyses investigated the relationship between ABOS Part I performance and scores on USMLE Step 1 and 2. RESULTS: Step 1 and Step 2 individually each explained 29% of the variation in Part I scores; using both scores increased this percentage to 34%. Results of logistic regression analyses showed a similar, moderately strong relationship with Part I pass/fail outcomes: Examinees with low scores on Steps 1 and 2 were at substantially greater risk for failing Part I. CONCLUSIONS: There is continuing empirical support for use of Step 1 and Step 2 scores in selection of residents to interview for orthopedics residency positions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".